RYZEN 3600 OC - advice
RYZEN 3600 OC - advice
Options --> Torture test -->"blend all above " was ticked and I pressed OK. After a few minutes the temps skyrocketed to 89 degrees. To be honest, this is my initial experience with Prime 95, so I'm uncertain if this method is right.
Ryzen 3rd gen is one of the worst architecture's to overclock due to it's extreme sensitivity to vcore. If you really wanted to overclock, you should have gone Intel.
Main reasons why it's an issue:
A. Nobody knows the max safe voltage for Zen 2. Even 1.3v is sketchy.
B. AMD has already basically maxed out the CPUs. Especially because they can run higher voltages at stock vs manually overclocking due to their silicon health monitoring AI systems.
For overclocking, stick with either auto or offset voltage which keeps the health monitoring stuff online. Then run PBO and increase core clock via AutoOC (whether in BIOS or in Ryzen Master).
But really it's not worth it, you gain so little performance from overclocking 3rd Gen Ryzen. You're way better off overclocking RAM and timings to get more FPS.
Yeah Prime95 puts a big strain on the CPU which is good, but for gaming workloads, your temps should be way lower.
I'm using a 3600x OC'd processor at 4.350ghz and 1.319v on an ASUS ROG Strix X470 gaming laptop. The PBO/CBS in the advanced section is disabled since it's not necessary, which really lowered the temperatures. If you don't enable the AVX box in P95, your temperature will rise significantly. Any tests showing AVX ticking in the bottom right will allow the bottom left to also tick, but disabling the AVX will stop that.
I reduced the settings: 42 GHz with a CPU voltage of 1.24. In games such as The Shadow of the Tomb Raider, the CPU temperature is about 58 degrees. I think I’ll stick with it. I’m quite disappointed with the Auto OC – I set everything to auto and turned on "Gaming Boost." During full load in Cinebench R20, the CPU core reached 1.4 V, and the temperatures were extremely high (around 80 degrees).
If the "game boost" comes from the motherboard maker rather than AMD directly, it's generally not recommended. Trying to auto overclock from the manufacturer's side usually results in poor performance.
Regarding this, it's about the complaints from users about CPUs not hitting their advertised boost clocks—they weren't, but the gap was so minor it didn't justify the frustration. AMD addressed it by raising power limits, allowing them to draw more power and voltage at lower loads... quite clever. People got what they asked for, so yes. They're still not as powerful as Intel's heaters, yet they outperform Intel in performance and offer better value—still a victory for AMD, I think. As TechyInAZ mentioned, if you were aiming for overclocking, you'd have been better off with Intel, but that doesn't justify the extra cost.
I hadn't fully understood how sensitive this new design is to changes in Core voltage and temperatures. I recall reading about the Ryzen 1600's overclocking potential, where people managed to push its core voltages extremely high. That's why I chose this newer Ryzen model—hoping it would allow me to exceed the advertised 42 GHz speeds. Still, I'm very satisfied with the upgrade. It fits much better with my GTX 1070 TI in demanding CPU-heavy games like Battlefield 1. I've noticed significant gains in FPS and frame rates. In short, I'll keep these settings for now: core voltage at 1.24 and clock speeds at 42 GHz. Thanks!
Aye. I should have answered faster, but I was cleaning out my aquarium...